In the late 1700s, Britain faced a serious trade imbalance with China. Silk, porcelain, and tea from China were in high demand among people across all social classes in Britain. By 1800, for example, the British East India Company was importing millions of pounds of tea from China into Britain annually. China, on the other hand, was self-sufficient and considered Western goods to be quaint novelties. As a result, there was little demand for Western manufactured goods.

The Commercial Crisis That Led Britain to Smuggle Indian Opium

Wanting to solve these trade problems, Britain dispatched the Macartney Embassy in 1793 to broker better trade terms, but the Qianlong Emperor rejected every request. The failure of this mission meant that Britain had to continue to pay for Chinese goods using silver bullion. By the late 1700s, however, the outflow of silver from Britain to China was threatening to deplete British East India Company coffers. Britain quickly realized that it needed to find a trade commodity that China couldn’t resist.

British merchants finally found what they were looking for halfway across the world in British-occupied India. The British East India Company had created an effective monopoly on opium production in the Bengal and Bihar regions of India at that time. The opium was primarily used for recreational smoking and medicine.

Technically, the British East India Company did not transport opium directly to China. Company officials sold processed opium chests to foreign traders at public auctions in Calcutta. Ships owned by foreign private merchants then transported the chests of opium to Lintin Island, close to mainland China. There, Chinese brokers paid for the drug in silver before local smugglers used small, fast boats to transfer the chests into China. By the late 1830s, over 30,000 chests of opium were entering China every year.

Lin Zexu’s Opium Crackdown and the Clash Over Free Trade

On December 31, 1838, the Daoguang Emperor appointed Lin Zexu as an Imperial Commissioner to end the opium trade, as Lin was known for his firm moral stance on the issue. The most immediate danger at the time was a currency crisis caused by the massive drain of silver from the country. This happened because the value of silver rose sharply against copper. 

Since peasants were paid in copper but had to pay taxes in silver, their tax burden effectively doubled, causing a major economic crisis. The military was also weakened because many soldiers were addicted to the drug. The problem reached endemic levels in the government as well, and widespread addiction hampered effective administration and led to more corruption.

When Lin arrived in Canton that spring, he forced all foreign merchants to hand over their opium supplies. He then ordered that the opium be destroyed and dumped into the ocean. The destruction of over 2 million pounds of opium at Humen sparked outrage in London. Meanwhile, a vocal group of private British merchants pressured Parliament by arguing that China had violated international law and the rights of free trade. While Lin viewed the action as a matter of domestic law enforcement, the British Foreign Office agreed to defend the property rights of its citizens and the principle of free trade.

How British Naval Superiority Forced Open Chinese Ports in 1842

The Battle of Chuenpi took place on November 3, 1839, when HMS Volage and HMS Hyacinth fired upon a Chinese force of war junks near the entrance of the Pearl River estuary. The naval clash marked an escalation in tensions that led to the First Opium War. The vast gap in military technology between the British Navy and the Chinese defenses eventually forced China to sign the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing. Under the agreement, China would pay a substantial sum to compensate Britain for the destroyed opium and cover the costs of the conflict. The East Asian nation was also required to hand over control of Hong Kong Island to the British and open five strategic ports where foreign merchants could trade without restriction.

How Further Conflict Ushered in China’s Century of Humiliation

The 1843 Treaty of the Bogue established extraterritoriality and most-favored-nation status, but since the treaty ignored the opium problem, smuggling continued to flourish. Britain and France eventually launched the Second Opium War in 1856 while China was already struggling with the internal Taiping Rebellion. Allied forces soon captured Beijing in 1860 and burned down the Old Summer Palace.

The defeats compelled China to sign the Convention of Peking. Subsequent tariff agreements finally legalized the opium trade and granted foreigners the right to travel throughout the Chinese interior. 

While the main objective for Britain was to guarantee that its citizens could keep profiting from the Chinese market, the unequal treaties ushered in China’s “century of humiliation” and triggered a decline in Qing power that lasted until the end of imperial rule in 1912.

Article 122 of the Soviet Union’s constitution, created after the Russian Revolution, stipulated: “Women in the USSR are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life.” Between 1923 and 1920, the number of female workers increased by 430,000. During the Soviet era, pioneer soviet women would demonstrate remarkable achievements in politics, labor, education, culture, and science.

1. Nadezhda Krupskaya (1869-1939): The First Soviet Woman in Education

Nadezhda Krupskaya has been overshadowed as a devoted revolutionary, educationalist, and essayist by the figure of revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, the founder and first head of government of Soviet Russia. In popular perception, she became known simply as “Lenin’s wife.” Thus, it might come as a surprise that Nadezhda Krupskaya was actively involved in the revolutionary struggles for the cause of communism.

Together with Vladimir Lenin, in 1897, Tsarist Russia sent her into exile in remote Siberia, where Nadezhda passionately worked with her husband on Lenin’s major treatise, The Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899). However, The Woman Worker, Nadezhda’s first pamphlet created in Siberia in 1899, is still the earliest Marxist document that tackles the socioeconomic conditions and denial of women’s rights in Tsarist Russia. Nadezhda Krupskaya called for women to fight for equality alongside male workers. In particular, the pamphlet read: “The woman worker is a member of the working class, and all her interests are closely tied to the interests of that class.”

Following the end of their exile in 1901, Nadezhda Krupskaya and Vladimir Lenin relocated to Western Europe to lead the Russian Marxist Movement abroad. There, Nadezhda Krupskaya played a pivotal role in establishing, producing, and distributing the Marxist newspaper Iskra, “The Spark.” Its motto was “A single spark can start a prairie fire.”

Nadezhda became the secretary of the Iskra group, in charge of a vast and codified correspondence, aiming to form vital links between the revolutionary underground in Russia and Russian emigrés abroad. This tedious work significantly contributed to the formation of the organizational framework for the Russian socialist movement, which would later lead to the Russian Revolution.

Following the successful Russian Revolution in 1917, Nadezhda became Deputy Commissar to Anatoli Lunacharsky, the People’s Commissar of Education and Enlightenment. In this role, she developed the Soviet library classification system. From 1920, she worked in various positions and was responsible for education and literacy in Soviet society.

She served as the Deputy Minister of Education of the Soviet Union from 1929 until she died in 1939, playing a key role in founding the Communist youth organizations Komsomol (the Russian abbreviation for Vsesoyuzny Leninsky Kommunistichesky Soyuz Molodyozhi) and the Pioneers (All-Union Lenin Pioneer Organization). Komsomol was the youth division of the Communist Party, shaping young Soviets into loyal communists through ideological education, military training, and labor projects. The Pioneers was intended for younger children and instilled communist values through school activities, patriotic programs, and social work.

Her sociopolitical life was full of obstacles and opposition from the ruling party and its leader, Joseph Stalin, especially after the death of Vladimir Lenin. Nadezhda Krupskaya spent her final years knowing that Stalin’s regime had either physically eliminated or morally broken many of her fellow revolutionaries. In 1939, Russian revolutionary and Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky wrote her epitaph: “With profound sorrow we bid farewell to the loyal companion of Lenin, to an irreproachable revolutionist and one of the most tragic figures in revolutionary history.”

2. Inessa Armand (1876-1920): The First Soviet Feminist

Inessa Armand’s work and struggles for women’s rights were widely censored and suppressed by the ruling elite of the Socialist Party. Inessa Armand was born in 1876 in Paris, France. While in Paris, she joined the charitable work to assist impoverished women. In the early 1900s, Inessa relocated to Sweden to study feminism under Ellen Key, a well-known Swedish feminist and social reformer. Soon, Inessa Armand joined the French Socialist Party, and when she arrived in Moscow, Russia in 1904, she became a member of the Russian Social Democratic Party.

In Moscow, as chair of the Moscow Society for the Improvement of the Situation of Women’s Commission on Education, Inessa took an active role in matters affecting women. Armand was arrested by Tsarist authorities as a result of her social activism; she was eventually forced to relocate to Europe, where she met Vladimir Lenin.

Lenin was fascinated by Inessa’s intelligence, organizational skills, and fluency in four languages. In 1914, he chose Inessa to represent him at the International Socialist Bureau in Brussels, Belgium.

Armand believed that progress and the establishment of a socialist society were the only ways to achieve women’s emancipation. She also believed that women had a crucial role in the revolutionary fight against capitalism. In this sense, Inessa’s vision of the emancipation of women workers had a different ideological background from the formal and legal equality of women, which were the primary concerns of Western feminism at that time.

To achieve this aim, Armand, along with her like-minded colleagues, established the Women’s Congress in 1918 following the successful completion of the Russian Revolution. In 1919, the congress obtained official support from the Bolshevik leadership and became known as Zhenotdel (the women’s department of the Russian Communist Party). Under the guidance of Inessa Armand, the Zhenotdel would play a critical role in advocating for women’s equality within trade unions and the Communist Party.

In 1914, she became editor of the women’s section of the magazine Pravda and proved instrumental in launching the theoretical Bolshevik journal The Woman Worker.

Although not widely known for her dedication to socialist ideals and women’s rights, after the October Revolution in 1917, Armand became the most powerful woman in Moscow. In 1920, she chaired the First International Conference of Communist Women. Inessa died in 1920 due to health complications.

3. Valentina Tereshkova (1927- ): The First Woman in Space

Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman to travel in space on June 16, 1963, aboard the Vostok 6 spacecraft. Born to a peasant family on March 6, 1927, in the village of Bolshoye Maslennikovo in central Russia, Tereshkova spent most of her youth working in a textile factory with her mother. During this period, she joined the local skydiving and parachutist club. When given the opportunity, she appealed to the Soviet Space Program Committee and was chosen from more than 400 candidates.

Tereshkova underwent 18 months of intensive training at the Soviet Air Force and joined the ranks at the age of 24, becoming the youngest woman to fly in space. The Soviet television and other mass media outlets broadcasted Tereshkova inside the space capsule while she addressed the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev.

After the successful space mission, Tereshkova received several prestigious medals and held high-level political positions both inside the Soviet Union and globally. In 1966, she became a member of the World Peace Council.

Despite the remarkable start, the gender gap in the space program did not shrink with Valentina Tereshkova. Another 19 years would pass until the second Soviet woman, cosmonaut Svetlana Savitskaya, would travel to space in 1982.

4. Lyudmila Pavlichenko (1916-1974): “Lady Death” of the Red Army

Lyudmila Pavlichenko, born July 12, 1916, in Belgorod, Russia, is regarded as the most successful female sniper in history. In her youth, she joined a shooting club and became an accomplished sharpshooter. In 1937, Pavlichenko enrolled at Kyiv University to study history and attended a Red Army sniping school.

When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Lyudmila was among the first to volunteer at her local recruiting office of the army. Initially, she was appointed to serve as a nurse, but using her background in shooting, she eventually managed to join the infantry. Lyudmila Pavlichenko did not need much time to prove her exceptional abilities in the field. During the Siege of Odessa (August 8 to October 16, 1941), she recorded 187 kills. In the Siege of Sevastopol (October 30, 1941 to July 4, 1942), she killed about 200 Nazi soldiers.

For these achievements, in June 1942, the Soviet Union leadership promoted her to lieutenant and assigned Lyudmila to train other snipers. At the time, she was only 25. To help the Allies form a second front against Nazi Germany, Lyudmila was moved to North America the same year. During this period, the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, received her in the White House. Lyudmila became the first Soviet citizen to visit the White House.

After World War II ended, Pavlichenko completed her studies and continued her career as a historian. She later joined the Soviet Navy as a research assistant.

Lyudmila Pavlichenko was the first recipient of the Hero of the Soviet Union award, the highest honor in the Soviet military, out of 2,000 women shooters in the Red Army. There are 309 confirmed kills on Pavlichenko’s record, which makes her one of the most successful snipers in modern warfare.

5. Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966): The First Soviet Poet to Gain International Recognition

Anna Akhmatova is one of the most famous Russian poets, whose work continues to be admired to this day. Her contemporary Marina Tsvetaeva referred to her as “All of Russia’s sweet-voiced one”—a reference to Akhmatova’s ability to articulate the feelings of an entire nation. As one of Russia’s greatest poets, Akhmatova touched on the themes of love, loss, and political repression. Her most accomplished works are Requiem (not fully published until 1987) and Poem Without a Hero (1967), which are artistic representations of the Stalinist terror.

Born in Odessa in 1889, Anna Andreevna Gorenko decided to write under a pseudonym after her father, a naval engineer of modest bourgeois origin, forbade her from shaming his family by becoming a “decadent poetess.” Her maternal Tatar roots inspired the poet’s literary pseudonym: Anna’s grandmother claimed to be a descendant of Khan Akhmat, who, in turn, had Genghis Khan as an ancestor.

Akhmatova’s life and work are vivid evidence of the horrors that haunted the 20th century. She survived two wars, a revolution, and the blockade of Leningrad. She also witnessed the deportation, imprisonment, and murder of her closest friends and family members.

The repeated arrests of Akhmatova’s son, Levi, and his eventual sentence to exile in the Gulags, forced the poet to give up writing, as Anna feared that her poetry would cause more harm to her son. Her difficult situation then was compounded by an unofficial ban on her work. Later, Akhmatova would write that “motherhood is a bright torture. I was not worthy of it.” As a result, she chose to remain silent for almost twenty years.

Isaiah Berlin, the first secretary of the British embassy, described Anna Akhmatova as a “tragic queen,” due to the artistic repression from the Soviet government and her tremendous personal loss.

In 1965, Anna Akhmatova received the Etna-Taormina prize and an honorary doctorate from Oxford University.

6. Alexandra Kollontai (1872-1952): The First Woman Diplomat in the Soviet Union

Alexandra Kollontai was the first woman ambassador in the world and the People’s Commissar of Public Charity in the Soviet Union. She was born into a wealthy noble family and had access to a good education, speaking several foreign languages from a very young age.

In 1898, Alexandra relocated to Switzerland and enrolled at Zurich University before moving to Great Britain, where she joined the workers’ movement. Between 1905 and 1907, Alexandra actively participated in the first Russian Revolution, forming close ties with Vladimir Lenin. She ultimately joined the Bolsheviks in 1915.

In the early 1920s, Alexandra asked the Soviet authorities to be assigned diplomatic work. Considering her close ties with the European socialist movements and her working experience in the post of secretary of the International Women Secretariat under the Communist International, she was eventually appointed as the commercial representative of the Soviet Union in Norway and Sweden. Alexandra remarked:

“Naturally this appointment created a great sensation since, after all, it was the first time in history that a woman was officially active as an ‘ambassador.’ (…) Nevertheless, I set myself the task of effecting the de jure recognition of Soviet Russia and of re-establishing normal trade relations between the two countries which had been broken by the war and the revolution. (…) On February 15, 1924, Norway in fact recognized the USSR de jure.”

From 1926 to 1927, she also worked in Mexico to support the close relations between the Soviet Union and the North American country. In 1930, Alexandra Kollontai was appointed ambassador to Sweden and became a member of the Soviet delegation in the League of Nations. Until 1945, Alexandra played an important role in regulating Soviet-Scandinavian relations during the Soviet-Finnish War (1939-1940) and negotiated the 1940 Soviet-Finnish peace treaty.

By 1945, Alexandra was forced to resign due to health complications. However, she continued working as an advisor to the Soviet Union’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

7. Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya (1923-1941): People’s Hero

Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya was only 18 years old when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Still in school, Zoya quit her studies and joined a guerrilla group in October 1941.

To curb the Nazi invasion, the Soviet Union ordered fire to be set to the territories occupied by the Nazi forces. The personnel needed to execute such an order was enlisted from the military unit N 9903, one of the most secret units in the Red Army. Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya ended up being among these recruits.

Before being captured by Nazi forces near the village of Petrisheva on November 27, she managed to disrupt the German field telephone wire, set fire to the German troop quarters, and destroyed a 20-horse enemy stable.

The Nazi soldiers tortured her for two days in an attempt to get her to disclose strategic information. Kosmodemyanskaya was eventually hanged publicly. In her last act of courage, she shouted in front of the assembled crowd:

“Comrades, why are you so sad? I am not afraid to die, I am happy to die for my people […] You are going to hang me, but I am not the only one. There are more than 200 million of us, you can’t hang us all. My comrades will avenge my death. Germans, surrender before it is too late. Victory is ours.”

The public execution of a young partisan woman resonated with the war-torn Soviet citizens. In February, journalist Pyotr Lidov published an article in the state-affiliated newspaper Pravda, inspiring the leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, to make her a symbol of the role of women during the “Great Patriotic War” against Nazi Germany.

British historian Antony Beevor remarks in his famous book Berlin: The Downfall 1945: “A great number of Komsomol members still carried newspaper cuttings with a photograph of Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, the young partisan ‘tortured to death by Germans.’ Many wrote ‘for Zoya’ on their tanks and aircraft.”

Joseph Stalin posthumously awarded Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya the title Hero of the Soviet Union. She was the first woman to receive the award.

8. Natalya Gorbanevskaya (1936-2013): Soviet Woman Dissident & Poet

Natalya Gorbanevskaya was a Russian poet and civil rights activist born in September 1936, in Moscow, Russia. In the early 1950s, she was expelled from the Moscow State University due to her political activities related to reading dissident literature and resistance to Soviet censorship. Eventually, Natalya Gorbanevskaya earned a philosophy degree from Leningrad State University and, up until the early 1960s, worked as a translator, librarian, and technical writer.

Despite starting writing in the 1920s, her most notable works are from the 1960s and 1970s, when Natalya actively engaged in civil activism. In August 1968, when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia, she was one of eight activists who protested in the Red Square. She was carrying her three-month-old son in desperation.

In December 1969, she was detained by the Soviet authorities for taking part in this protest. She spent three years in a mental health facility, which was a common punishment for dissidents. After her release, she relocated to Paris, France.

During this period,  she wrote a book called Noon (1970) about the demonstrations and subsequent trials in the Soviet Union. The book was published later as Red Square at Noon in France, the UK, Mexico, and the United States. In Paris, she worked as a correspondent for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and editor of Russian-language publications.

Gorbanevskaya, the legend of the dissent movement, was often hailed as a hero. However, she would object, “I’m not a hero. I’m just an ordinary person.”

The British media promoted Lord Horatio Herbert Kitchener as a gentleman officer, but the real man was anything but. He was a ruthless pragmatist who used the efficiency of industrialization to win wars, often with horrific consequences.

Prioritizing strategic goals over human cost ushered in a new era in which heroic cavalry charges and the honorable conduct of combatants became a thing of the past. This is how Kitchener defined a new era of combat.

Kitchener’s War in Sudan

Logistical capabilities have been and always will be a defining feature of achieving tactical and strategic victory. This key component is something that Kitchener was very well aware of, and he knew that technological advances could provide overwhelming superiority in this aspect. This proved to be the case in the Sudan, where Kitchener led the British in the Anglo-Egyptian conquest of Sudan during the Mahdist War.

In 1885, the expedition led by Garnet Wolseley to relieve the besieged Major General Gordon in Khartoum ended in failure, very much due to logistical issues, and Kitchener, aware that his prestige was on the line, made sure his campaign did not repeat the same mistakes. Reliance on river transport and the unpredictable flooding of the Nile would not be a factor in Kitchener’s attempt, as he ordered the construction of a 230-mile railway.

Kitchener used soldiers and convict labor to construct the railway. In the heat of the desert and with only 4 hours of sleep per day, Kitchener worked his men so hard that there were a number of deaths for which Kitchener blamed his subordinates.

Once built, however, the railway was so effective that it cut transport time from northern Egypt to Sudan from 18 days to just 24 hours. Along this railway were also 630 miles of telegraph lines and 19 telegraph stations, ensuring effective communication.

Modern artillery and machine guns were transported along with troops, and their effects in battle were undisputed. In the confrontations that followed, tens of thousands of troops were brought to bear by both sides, and while the Mahdists suffered thousands killed, the British forces emerged from every battle with minimal losses. At the Battle of Omdurman, the Anglo-Egyptian force numbered just over 25,000 but was outnumbered 2 to 1. The slaughter that occurred saw 12,000 Mahdists dead and 13,000 wounded, while the Anglo-Egyptian force suffered just 47 dead and 382 wounded. Such was the efficiency of modern weapons that an eyewitness account claimed, “It was not a battle but an execution.”

At the close of the battle, Kitchener, viewing the carnage from horseback, quipped, “Well, we have given them a damn good dusting,” before ordering his army to press onward. Winston Churchill, who was present at the battle, noted the lack of “dulce et decorum” and dignity, and later stated that war was becoming a “matter of machinery.”

Kitchener’s Horror in South Africa

In 1899, war broke out in southern Africa between the British Empire and the Boer republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. After a series of initial setbacks for the British, who had been unprepared to face a peer-equipped army, Kitchener was sent to help organize the war effort. First as Chief of Staff and then as Commander-in-Chief, Kitchener’s policies brought much moral questioning over the conduct of British forces.

The Boer republics were conventionally beaten by the end of 1900, but many Boers refused to give up their arms and continued waging a guerrilla campaign against British forces. In a bid to eliminate this threat, Kitchener turned to ethically questionable methods. He implemented scorched earth to deny the guerrillas any form of resupply. Civilians became victims, too, and many faced starvation. With their farms and homesteads burned, Boer civilians, most of them women and children, were herded into concentration camps. Kitchener stated that things had to be uncomfortable in the camps to persuade the Boer kommandos to surrender.

“Uncomfortable” resulted in neglect, disease, poor sanitation, and malnutrition. Over 26,000 Boer women and children died. Africans were also targeted and put into separate camps. As many as 20,000 are thought to have died. At night, the dead were taken out and buried in mass graves. While the press sanitized the events, the horrific conditions were brought to light by welfare campaigner and activist Emily Hobhouse, who reported the issues to the British public.

Hobhouse wrote to Lord Kitchener, “To carry out orders such as these is a degradation both to the office and the manhood of your soldiers. I feel ashamed to own you as a fellow-countryman.”

Despite all the criticism, the camps were effective, and Boers in the field, fearing for the safety of their loved ones, began to surrender.

At the end of 1901, Lord Alfred Milner took over the administration of the camps, and the conditions improved drastically, but by then, the damage to the Boer population and to the British reputation had been done. Nevertheless, Kitchener’s career continued on an upward trajectory. He was awarded the Order of Merit and given the title of viscount. In 1909, he achieved the rank of Field Marshal, the highest rank in the military, and in 1914, he was elevated to earl.

How Kitchener’s New Armies Transformed Britain Into a Military Superpower

The weapons of the Sudan campaign and the methods used in South Africa hinted at a terrible industrialization of what war would become in the 20th century. This was not lost on Kitchener, who had had first-hand experience in the developments, and after the outbreak of hostilities with the Central Powers in 1914, he correctly predicted that the war would last for years and drain all available manpower. With a solid reputation for getting the job done, Kitchener was made Secretary of State for War in August 1914.

He appealed for volunteers for his “New Armies” and was constantly in the eyes of the public with his face on Alfred Leete’s “Your Country Needs You” poster. For over a year, he helped transform Britain’s industry into one capable of supplying its troops en masse. Initially asking for 100,000 troops, the response was overwhelming, and 175,000 volunteered in a single week alone! With ample experience in command and logistics, Kitchener was able to transform Britain’s army into a fighting force that was able to fulfill its commitments on the continent.

Ironically, Kitchener was stripped of much control for his decision-making, which was criticized for being insufficiently knowledgeable about modern warfare. He had no knowledge of the War Office nor the Cabinet. Despite being acquainted with modern weapons, the few years that followed the Anglo-Boer war had seen even more technological developments that made the weapons of Kitchener’s wars seem primitive by comparison.

Causing quite a scandal, he persisted in ordering shrapnel shells for troops on the Western Front instead of the much-needed high-explosive shells. His reputation had also taken a blow due to the failed strategic considerations of the Gallipoli Campaign, which was an unmitigated disaster.

The End of an Era

Kitchener’s death has always been viewed as being somewhat mysterious. While traveling to Russia, the ship he was on, HMS Hampshire, struck a mine laid by a German U-boat and sank. 737 crewmen were lost, including Kitchener. Such was his plummeting reputation at this point that the editor of the Manchester Guardian, CP Scott, even wrote, “he could not have done better than to have gone down, as he was a great impediment lately.”

Conspiracies and myths followed his death, and are still debated to this day. Fritz Joubert Du Quesne, a Boer and a German spy, claimed responsibility. German records mention that he assumed the identity of Russian Duke Boris Zakrevsky, who joined Kitchener in Scotland and boarded the vessel. He signaled the U-boat and made his escape on a raft. For his efforts, he was awarded the Iron Cross, though historians widely consider his tale of disguised infiltration and escape to be a self-aggrandizing fabrication.

There are also many other less believable theories. One theory proposes that Kitchener was assassinated by the British government as a convenient way to rid itself of a much-respected but problematic liability. Another theory speculated that the ship was sunk by Irish Republicans who had secreted explosives on the vessel. Perhaps the least credible theory of all was that Kitchener didn’t die, but escaped to Russia and became Josef Stalin.

A Lasting Legacy

Kitchener was a transformative force in how wars are fought. He normalized practices that became commonplace in the 21st century and introduced the British Army to the realities of modern warfare. He helped transform Britain’s military into a modern fighting force of massive proportions in an age of rapid industrialization, fulfilling the theories of Total War in which civilians were a necessary consideration in the quest for victory. This included what many consider to be genocide, if not intentional, then through negligence.

Framing him as a hero is a difficult proposition, and one can argue that the dynamic of Total War existed beyond Kitchener. That being said, the responsibility of the brutality suffered under his command was certainly within his domain to rectify. And there was little compassion shown on his part. Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the role he played as the Victorian Era gave way to mass production and world wars, and he stands as an important historical figure for these reasons.

Women were not always allowed to participate in politics or even vote. It was a long fight for women to have their voices heard. Even today, in some parts of the world, women are seen as less than their male fellow citizens. Throughout history, many pioneering women had to fight hard, risk their lives, and even willingly sacrifice to achieve equal rights. This article will explore the inspiring lives of four fascinating women in political leadership who left an everlasting legacy on global politics and shaped our world.

1. Cleopatra VII (69-30 BCE)

In antiquity, one of the most fascinating women in leadership was Cleopatra VII Philopator. She was a legendary ruler, one of the most influential political leaders, and the last active ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, which faced the aggressive expansion of the Roman Republic.

The Ptolemaic dynasty, Macedonian by descent, ruled the Kingdom of Egypt after the death of Alexander the Great. After Cleopatra’s father, Ptolemy XII, died in 51 BCE, the Kingdom of Egypt faced a power struggle between Cleopatra and her younger brother, Ptolemy XIII. It was then that Cleopatra realized that she would need to develop her diplomatic skills and find strong allies.

She saw a perfect opportunity in the Roman ruler, Julius Caesar. During the political conflict with her brother, Cleopatra fled Egypt to Syria, where she gathered an army to fight her brother. It was at that time that she allied with Caesar. According to some legendary tales, she was smuggled to her meeting with Caesar, arriving rolled up in a carpet. She partnered with the Roman leader and secured her throne in Egypt.

In addition to forming a military and economic partnership with the Roman Republic, Cleopatra and Julius Caesar became lovers. They were a power couple, bettering each other and securing their political stances. According to Plutarch, they welcomed a child together and connected two powerful states in every sense. However, their happiness and partnership were short-lived due to Caesar’s assassination in 44 BCE. Cleopatra was in Rome at the time.

With Caesar’s assassination, Cleopatra lost the father of her child and a powerful ally. Faced with an unstable situation, she had to be decisive and secure the future of her state. She found a new ally in Mark Antony, a famous Roman general and member of the Second Triumvirate.

Mark Antony found Cleopatra to be a fascinating woman. They formed a powerful allyship but also a passionate romantic relationship. Together, they were a strong political and military unit. Cleopatra saw a downfall with the rise of Octavian (the future emperor Augustus), the political nemesis of Mark Antony. Octavian defeated the couple in the naval Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. A year later, Cleopatra committed suicide. According to most Classical authors, she took her life with the help of an asp, a venomous snake.

Cleopatra not only made strong political alliances but was also an astute policymaker. She was determined to boost the Egyptian economy and education. Cleopatra encouraged international trade and guided her people through an extremely challenging period. Although she ultimately did not secure her state’s independence, she refused to surrender without a fierce fight and chose to end it on her terms. Cleopatra is one of the most recognized and fascinating political leaders.

2. Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603)

Queen Elizabeth I was one of the strongest English monarchs, changing the course of world history. Her life was far from easy, and solidifying her position and authority was challenging. She was the last ruler of the famous Tudor dynasty, and her reign is considered a golden age of English history, also known as the Elizabethan Age.

Elizabeth was the daughter of one of the most controversial royal couples in history, King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Due to the multiple marriages of her father and the beheading of her mother, Elizabeth’s childhood and teen years were difficult.

Elizabeth became a queen at the age of 25, and her legitimacy was questioned every step of the way. Being a woman in the leading role, especially considering her family history, was quite uncommon at the time. However, Elizabeth proved her political opponents wrong.

Elizabeth inherited the English throne and crown during a tumultuous period, with religious and political conflicts raging across the kingdom. However, she successfully resolved the dispute between Catholics and Protestants, establishing herself as a strong monarch, the epitome of absolute monarchy. In 1559, the Elizabethan Religious Settlement (composed of the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity) led to a more moderate and tolerant tone to the Church of England, ultimately bringing religious stability to the land.

Elizabeth was also a pragmatic leader, knowing when to turn to diplomacy and when to wage a war. She famously defeated the Spanish Armada sent by King Philip II and turned England into a naval power. During her reign, the Kingdom of England started to explore unknown lands, paving the way for the future colonial empire. Elizabeth chose not to get married and was remembered as the “virgin queen” bringing religious and mythical elements to her persona. She may have been the last Tudor sitting on the English throne, but she is one of history’s most influential monarchs.

3. Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1964)

Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the most influential political voices in the United States’ contemporary history. She was the first lady and wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Besides her political and social advocacy, she is credited with being the first president’s wife who changed the role of the first lady from being ceremonial to being more proactive and influential. Indeed, she was involved in many causes, from women’s rights to civil rights.

Eleanor Roosevelt was a woman who was not afraid to speak her mind. During the presidential campaign and after, she frequently visited different media outlets and discussed causes and issues she supported. She also wrote and held press briefings, ensuring women’s voices were heard and acknowledged. Eleanor, for example, was among the first women in such a public space to discuss gender equality and rights.

Besides being a women’s champion, Eleanor Roosevelt was also a civil rights advocate. She opposed racism and was against the ongoing segregation. In 1939, her resignation from the Daughters of the American Revolution organization due to its refusal to allow American singer Marian Anderson to perform was widely reported in the media, drawing attention to the issue of racism. After stepping down from the organization, Eleanor invited the singer to perform at the Lincoln Memorial.

When her husband died in 1945, Eleanor Roosevelt continued to be involved in American politics. Because of her experience and skills, President Truman appointed her a delegate to the United Nations, where she excelled and greatly influenced important policies and declarations. She was a member of the UN when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed in 1948.

Through her groundbreaking work, Eleanor Roosevelt left an undeniable legacy and influence. Even after her time at the UN, she continued to work on various human rights causes and fight for a better and brighter future.

4. Angela Merkel (1954- )

Angela Merkel is a German politician and one of the most influential people in modern and contemporary politics. She was the German chancellor from 2005 to 2021, becoming the first woman to hold the office and the longest-serving since Otto von Bismarck. Merkel broke many barriers for female political leadership and left an everlasting legacy in Germany and world politics.

Angela was born in East Germany (the DDR) during the extremely challenging Cold War years when the Berlin Wall divided the country into two political entities. She showed various interests in science from a young age, so it’s not surprising that she became a physicist. Her scientific background and analytical mind made her a strong, pragmatic, and fact-based political leader.

When she decided to enter the political scene, her approach was methodical and decisive. In 2000, she joined the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and became its leader. By working hard and spreading her party’s program regarding economic and social strength, Merkel quickly became one of Germany’s most respected politicians and, finally, the German chancellor in 2005.

Her time as a counselor was far from easy. Germany and Europe faced several challenges, including the Eurozone crises (2009-2012), which caused many markets to crash. Angela Merkel handled the situation well, seeking to stabilize the Euro and the economy in Germany and other countries that were part of the economic bloc and dependent on each other.

Another challenging moment Merkel faced as the German chancellor was the 2015 refugee crisis. She supported the so-called “open door policy” which meant allowing people seeking safety and fleeing their country because of wars, destruction, and famine to find refuge in Germany. Her humanitarian decisions showed her empathetic side and awareness that political leaders have to take responsibility and model humanitarian behavior that would become the standard in world politics.

While Merkel was praised for her political decisions, her “open-door policy” provoked a backlash from right-wing groups, highlighting the polarizations dividing Germany’s political landscape.

Angela Merkel achieved so much during her time in office that countless books and documentaries have been made to express admiration for her and her political legacy. She stepped down in 2021, leaving a legacy of economic success and political integrity. She deservedly earned the nickname Mutti, or Mother.

These four women in leadership lived in four different eras of human history. They faced various difficulties and discrimination but persevered and successfully challenged existing political establishments. Their determination and fight for women’s place in political leadership inspired and paved the way for women to have more agency and participate in political decision-making.

Remembered as one of early Hollywood’s boldest stars, Marlene Dietrich transformed her fame into a weapon against Nazi Germany. Despite Hitler’s attempts to lure her home as the face of Nazi cinema, Dietrich became an American citizen and toured the United States to sell war bonds. She donated her Hollywood paychecks to aid Jewish refugees and recorded propaganda music to weaken German morale. Her fight even reached the front lines, where she braved harsh conditions to perform for thousands of Allied troops from North Africa to England.

Rising From Berlin Cabarets to Hollywood Stardom

Born in 1901 in Berlin, Germany, Dietrich’s upbringing was marked by the violence of the First World War. Like many others, she turned towards the vibrant and expressive post-war art scene in Berlin. She quickly captivated audiences as a talented cabaret singer, actress, and dancer. Her scandalous lifestyle as a bisexual mixed with her alluring charm and more masculine style made her a sensation in the Weimar Republic. After the success of The Blue Angel (1930), Dietrich captured the attention of Paramount Pictures and Hollywood. Within a few years, she was one of the highest-paid and most acclaimed actresses in the world.

Refusing Hitler and the Demands of Nazi Cinema

The Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda desperately wanted Dietrich to return to Germany and become the glamorous face of Nazi propaganda and fascist culture. High-ranking Nazi officials like Joachim von Ribbentrop offered her lucrative deals to become Germany’s biggest movie star. Adolf Hitler was especially eager for Dietrich’s support. He was an ardent fan of her films and allegedly wanted her to become his mistress. Instead, Dietrich rejected and condemned the Third Reich publicly. She even called Hitler an idiot on a British radio broadcast. In response, the Nazi regime labeled her a traitor and banned all of her films and songs. 

Renouncing German Citizenship to Fund Refugee Escapes

Dietrich undermined the Nazis before World War II. In 1937, she renounced her German citizenship and created a fund with filmmaker Billy Wilder to help Jewish and other persecuted artists escape Nazi Germany. She donated her salary from the film Knight Without Armor (1937) to fund their evacuations, emigration costs, and new lives abroad.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, Dietrich was one of the first celebrities to volunteer in the Allied war effort. She performed across the US in war bond tours. By 1943, she had sold more war bonds than any other star on tour. 

Broadcasting OSS Radio Propaganda to Demoralize Axis Soldiers

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) also recruited Dietrich to produce propaganda music. The precursor to the CIA, the OSS developed a plot to mix popular songs with anti-Nazi messages and speeches called the Muzak Project. Dietrich agreed to record famous songs in German that resonated with Axis troops for these broadcasts. She re-recorded songs like “Lili Marleen” and other beloved pieces like “Mean to Me” and “Time on My Hands.” The programs were broadcast into occupied territories to demoralize the German and Italian soldiers and make them question their loyalty to the Axis powers.

Risking Death on the Front Lines During Allied USO Tours

From 1944 to 1945, Dietrich became one of the most involved, resolute, and risky performers on the USO tours. Performing alongside Bing Crosby and the Andrews Sisters, she sang for hundreds of thousands of soldiers to boost morale from North Africa to the front lines in France. Even military commanders like General George Patton were taken aback by how close to the front she was willing to go despite being a marked traitor in Germany.

Granted an honorary colonel title, Dietrich charmed military personnel with her cheeky comedy performances, fabulous outfits, and serenades. Other performers joked, “she was always trying to get us killed,” as she remained near the front regardless of nearby shelling, frostbite, or influenza. She danced on makeshift stages with no electricity, wore military boots, slept in tents, ate alongside the soldiers, attended their training, and often visited the wounded. 

In 1947, US President Harry Truman awarded Dietrich the Medal of Freedom for her wartime contributions. She stated that it was her proudest achievement and the most important thing she had ever done.

In the early years of the Soviet Union, the Kronstadt rebellion of March 1921 proved a pivotal test for the new Bolshevik regime. The revolt was sparked by extreme dissatisfaction with the Bolshevik policy of War Communism and was centered around the naval fortress of Kronstadt, close to present-day Saint Petersburg. Although the Red Army swiftly dealt with this revolt, the actions at Kronstadt had a lasting effect on the trajectory of the USSR.

Prelude to the Kronstadt Rebellion

Towards the end of 1920, with the Russian Civil War drawing to a close, the recently instituted Bolshevik government of the Soviet Union was faced with rebuilding a nation ravaged by conflict and revolution. Despite the victory of the Red Army over the White forces led by Pyotr Wrangel, the Bolshevik’s control over the nation was not complete. Peasant uprisings in the countryside against communist power were worsened by the hardships of the war and by the Bolshevik policy of War Communism, which led to famine, disease, and a shortage of basic goods. Furthermore, the policy of forced grain requisitioning led to a deep resentment against the Bolsheviks among the rural classes, and towards the end of the Civil War, a large number of peasants refused to work.

Resistance towards the Bolsheviks was not focused solely on rural areas, as large urban centers such as Petrograd (formerly Saint Petersburg), which had previously formed the backbone of Soviet power, now began to rebel openly. In response to a reduction in the bread ration, industrial workers went on strike and demanded an end to War Communism and the harsh policies that had been imposed during the fight against the White Army. The naval base at Kronstadt and the rebellion that occurred there in March 1921 culminated in a nationwide feeling of dissatisfaction with Vladimir Lenin’s government.

Workers Demand the End of War Communism

Towards the end of January 1921, the Soviet central authorities in Moscow announced a nationwide reduction in the daily bread ration for those working in the major cities. The Bolshevik government blamed the harsh winter and field shortages for the reduction in the food supply. The working populations of Moscow and Petrograd reacted angrily to the new policy. By February, workers in the capital began organizing meetings that demanded an end to the policies of War Communism and a return to paid labor. These initial protests were dealt with harshly by the internal security forces of the USSR.

As the worker’s uprisings in Moscow began to die down, the situation in the second-largest city of the Soviet Union, Petrograd, became much worse. In Petrograd, severe food shortages had caused more than fifty percent of industrial factories to close down entirely, and workers held public meetings where they voiced their demands. Bolshevik authorities responded by mobilizing the Red Army to disperse protesters, declaring martial law, and banning large meetings. However, the response within the Kremlin was not entirely united, as elements within the Bolsheviks were divided over how to deal with the worker’s demands for an end to War Communism.

The Kronstadt Rebellion Begins

Since the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the sailors stationed at the Kronstadt naval base, just outside Petrograd, had been supportive of Lenin’s forces and even fought alongside elements of the Red Army during the Civil War. However, the naval forces within Kronstadt were suspicious of the growing centralized power that had taken root in the Soviet Union and were particularly affected by the harsh policies of War Communism. The sailors were forced to live in squalid conditions with poor supplies, limited medical assistance, and a lack of fuel for the heating and maintenance of the Baltic Fleet.

In response to the government crackdown on protesters in Petrograd, sailors at the Kronstadt naval base held an emergency meeting in late February. Decorated officers and the crew of the Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol warships drafted a list of fifteen demands, which they presented to the Bolshevik authorities. Among these demands were a call for new elections, increased freedom of speech, and an end to the harsh policies associated with War Communism.

While the sailors at Kronstadt saw their demands as a realistic reflection of the same requests that had been made by protesters in Moscow and Petrograd, the Bolshevik leadership reacted harshly and saw the events at Kronstadt as a direct threat to the central power in Moscow. Soon after the demands were issued, the naval officers at Kronstadt were labeled counterrevolutionaries and enemies of the state. The events at Kronstadt escalated quickly, and by March 2, the island was under direct control of the sailors who had taken local Bolshevik representatives hostage, ensuring their demands were treated seriously. In addition, they called for new elections.

The Bolsheviks Respond

While the rebels at Kronstadt had openly revolted against Bolshevik centralized power, they did not do so in a violent manner. In fact, the early negotiations between the sailors and local Bolsheviks were entirely peaceful, and no local representatives were harmed. However, as the sailors had begun calls for another revolution that would restore the ideals of 1917 and limit the further consolidation of power in the hands of the Bolsheviks, the Kremlin saw the rebellion as a serious threat to their regime. Leading Communists in Petrograd, such as Leon Trotsky and Zinoviev, issued ultimatums to the rebels calling for an end to anti-government activity. Authorities in Moscow also spread propaganda among the local people, which accused the sailors of being in league with the White Army.

The situation inside the Kronstadt fortress was increasingly dire. While the rebels had gained a great deal of support from sympathetic groups across the Soviet Union, there was no united uprising in support. On the contrary, opposition groups such as the Mensheviks, socialists, and military cadets were too internally divided to offer much support. Therefore, the rebels at Kronstadt were faced with the prospect of holding back a potential military assault from the Bolshevik security forces completely alone. While their position was heavily fortified, the rebels faced dire shortages of ammunition, food, and basic supplies. In contrast, the Bolsheviks led by Mikhail Tukhachevsky were well-equipped and reinforced by troops from the local Cheka.

The Bolshevik Assault on Kronstadt

The Bolshevik assault against Kronstadt began on March 7 and involved over sixty thousand troops. Despite their overwhelming numbers, the initial assault was unsuccessful, and the harsh winter conditions coupled with the heavily defended position of the rebels led to an early retreat. While the Bolsheviks continued bombarding the island with artillery strikes and bombing runs, the defenders were deeply entrenched. The failure of the initial assault led to plummeting morale among the Red Army troops, and a number of officers actually defected to the rebels.

However, as the siege on Kronstadt continued, the harsh winter weather and low supplies slowly deteriorated the rebel’s resolve, and a final Bolshevik assault was planned for March 17. Tukhachevsky led a force of fifty thousand Red Army troops that attacked from three directions as artillery barrages damaged the rebel ships, Sevastopol and Petropavlovsk. By the following day, Bolshevik forces had taken control over most of Kronstadt, and the last pockets of resistance were stamped out. Despite their victory, the Red Army lost more than ten thousand troops in the assault against Kronstadt as opposed to the reported rebel losses of just six hundred. Moreover, not all the rebel sailors were captured during the assault as thousands had fled across the frozen Baltic Sea towards Finland, where they claimed refugee status.

The Aftermath of the Kronstadt Rebellion

Following the defeat of the rebels at the Kronstadt naval base, the Bolshevik officer Pavel Dybenko was put in charge of the island. With the help of local authorities, he purged all remaining rebel forces from the base and renamed the battleships. The rebel sailors who remained at Kronstadt were either put on trial or sent into exile across the country. The prominent leaders of the rebellion who were captured by the Bolsheviks were either executed or sentenced to harsh prison sentences that were carried out in forced labor camps. Those rebels who were lucky enough to avoid capture and find refuge in Finland did fare much better. The Finnish government, wary of harboring such a large number of rebellious naval officers, sought to resettle the refugees in neighboring countries and even tried to arrange amnesty for their return to the Soviet Union.

None of the demands that had sparked the Kronstadt rebellion were met. The Bolsheviks continued with the policy of War Communism, and a number of left-wing groups that had expressed varying levels of support for the rebels were brutally suppressed. In the end, the greatest consequence that the Kronstadt rebellion had upon the Soviet Union was to accelerate the authoritarian trends that had triggered the uprising in the first place.

The Legacy of the Kronstadt Rebellion

According to historical accounts, the leader of the Bolsheviks, Vladimir Lenin, saw the Kronstadt rebellion as a turning point in the history of the Soviet Union. It served as a key factor in further tightening his party’s authoritarian rule. The rebellion first caused dissidents to be treated with extreme violence, and groups that were previously tolerated were outlawed completely. Moreover, the structure of the Soviet military was completely altered, and discipline was increased dramatically.

Some have seen Lenin’s decision to replace War Communism with his New Economic Policy as being directly influenced by the Kronstadt rebellion and the worker’s uprisings that preceded it. However, this was not the case. The Bolsheviks had begun drafting the NEP long before the revolt and had merely accelerated its adoption because of it. One way in which the Kronstadt rebellion influenced Lenin is that it swayed him to set aside his ambitions for a global proletarian revolution that would spread communism in Western Europe. Instead, he focused on domestic policies that would help prevent further dissent. Most significantly, all the events that took place at Kronstadt and their aftermath signaled a major change in Russian history. Libertarian socialism was steadily replaced by bureaucratic repression, which evolved into Stalinism, a brutal system that led to the Moscow Trials and eventually Stalin’s Great Purge.

Charles Vance Millar was a man of many eccentricities. A successful businessman, Millar was fond of pranks, and some wondered if the instructions left in his will were an extension of his love for jokes. Regardless of his motivations, Millar left an entertaining but risky proposition to his fellow Torontonians, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. Though economic conditions soon proved unfavorable for Millar’s scheme, there was no shortage of participants. As a result, the Great Stork Derby was on, growing families and, eventually, some bank accounts across Toronto.

A Man of Contradictions

Charles Vance Millar, born June 28, 1854, in Aylmer, Ontario, was a lawyer who was admired for his legal knowledge and prowess. His brilliance was an extension of his success in school as a young man. He attended the University of Toronto, graduating with a 98% grade average.

In addition to possessing a natural legal sense, he was a skilled businessman. He opened a private law firm and eventually took over mail delivery contracts. He purchased land and rental properties. Though Millar soon became wealthy, he preferred to do things himself rather than pay others to do tasks such as repairs at his rental homes. He slept outdoors on his porch regardless of the weather forecast, claiming it made him “tougher.”

Horse racing was another interest of Millar’s, one in which he invested significantly. He paid to expand and improve racetracks and owned several successful racehorses. Despite his occupation as a serious businessman and lawyer, Millar was well known for his love of pranks and practical jokes, played on both people he knew and complete strangers.

Contrary to other men of his social status, he was not actively involved in many fraternal organizations or charities. He seemed to be uncomfortable with his wealth, yet he was not known to donate any of it. Millar’s habit of holding his money close didn’t change until after his death, which occurred on October 31, 1926. He was in his law office in Toronto, discussing a case with a colleague, when he suffered a stroke and perished. Toronto would soon learn that the prominent lawyer and businessman would continue to have an impact on their city long after his death.

An Indecent Proposal

Millar did not have any close family of his own. He allegedly had his heart broken as a young man and never again pursued marriage. He had no children and his parents had predeceased him. As a result, he had no one to leave his assets and fortune to. Therefore, Millar distributed his life’s earnings by unconventional means, giving himself a bit of a last laugh while doing so.

His shares in a brewery were left to well-known temperance advocates, while his racetrack ownership percentages were designated to some outspoken anti-horse racing adversaries. Millar’s vacation home, located in Jamaica was left to three men who bitterly despised one another, and given on the condition that they own it together. What remained of Millar’s estate was up for grabs, to the winner of a contest he designed, a race that would become known as The Great Stork Derby of Toronto.

The contest for Millar’s fortune was open to all of the families in Toronto. He stipulated that the balance of the estate, in cash, would be awarded to the winner of the contest in ten years. How would the winner be decided? The woman who gave birth to the most children in the ten-year period would walk away with the cash. If there were a tie, the fortune would be divided equally among the finalists.

Announcements of the challenge were published in the press, but there was one obstacle. The government took the case as far as the Canadian Supreme Court, trying to get the contest nullified, but in the end, the Court upheld Millar’s offer as legal. There were some rules, however. Stillborn children did not count toward the total; children had to be born in Toronto, and they had to be born within a marriage—children born out of wedlock would not count in the tally.

Strange Motivations

Then and now, Millar’s motivation for creating the contest is truly unknown. However, there has been some supposition from those who knew him about why he would leave his money to the winner of such a wild and unheard-of contest. Some supposed that it was truly just one last practical joke to poke fun at the government and the people willing to stoop to such a level as to base their reproduction on a cash prize. Others argue that Millar’s motivations were more political in nature, perhaps a statement on birth control. Eugenics was also a hot topic in Canada at the time, including the idea that women of the “upper class” were not reproducing fast enough to keep up with the poor masses. Perhaps the contest was Millar’s way of sticking it to the wealthy cohorts with whom he never really felt at ease.

Big Families During Difficult Times

Meanwhile, the contest was in full swing. It is unknown how many families attempted to complete the challenge, just how many claimed to be participants at its conclusion. After the Supreme Court decision, the contest became a popular topic for news coverage. This became even more true after the fame of the Dionne Quintuplets, born in Corbeil, Ontario, in 1934. The Dionne babies were the first quintuplets in history to survive infancy, and their fame brought tourism and attention to Canada in droves. More babies were all the rage, but there were a few hindrances to those participating in Millar’s contest.

Firstly, there was the matter of time. With a nine-month gestation and no access to fertility drugs like in the modern era, women were simply limited on how many children they could have in a ten-year period. In addition, healthcare surrounding childbirth was light years from what it is now and was literally a threat to the mother’s health and survival. In the decade the contest ran, an average of 500 out of every 100,000 women died in childbirth, and infant mortality rates showed the death of 80 out of every 1,000 babies.

The onset of the Great Depression, which started in 1929, further added to the difficulties facing participants. The ripple effect of the Depression echoed that of what was seen in America. An estimated 30% of Canadians lost their jobs. More mouths to feed in a faltering economy could bring more hardships than blessings to those who were already struggling, but still, some contestants refused to quit.

The Winners… and Losers

Over two dozen Toronto families welcomed at least eight children during the Derby’s duration. At the conclusion of the contest, on October 31, 1936, the cash prize had reached about 1 million with the principal and interest, about 21 million by today’s standards. At first, it looked like the winner of the contest was Lillian Kenny, who had twelve children during the duration of the contest. Close behind her was Grace Bagnato, with eleven, and Pauline Mae Clark, with ten. However, none of the women who appeared to be in the top three initially would walk away with any winnings.

It turned out that four of Kenny’s children were stillborn, knocking her total for the contest down to eight. Bagnato was disqualified because she was an illegal immigrant from Italy with no Canadian citizenship. Five of Clark’s children were determined to be born out of wedlock, putting her out of the running.

Instead, four women would tie with nine children each and be declared winners: Annie Katherine Smith, Kathleen Ellen Nagle, Lucy Alice Timleck, and Isabel Mary Maclean. Still, they wouldn’t receive the funds in an even split immediately. Due to lawsuits and court costs, each of the four women received $75,000, and it took them two years to receive it. Kenny and Clarke both sued, and each received a $12,500 settlement.

The Aftermath

The four families that were declared contest winners all appeared to use their winnings wisely, buying homes and investing in businesses. Clarke disappeared from the public eye, as did Bagnato. Kenny, who had proven to be one of the most outspoken contestants throughout the decade of participation, continued to be harassed by the press. By 1941, her family had run through the settlement funds and was once again living in a poverty-stricken area of the city.

Perhaps Millar’s greatest legacy from the Great Stork Derby was the moral and ethical conversations it brought to light. Revitalized in a 1994 thesis by a Dalhousie University student, Elizabeth Wilton, in podcasts and novels, the Great Stork Derby still brings questions and discussions to historians decades after its conclusion.

Topics such as reproduction, birth control, eugenics, social class, and religion are all interwoven in Millar’s contest and still remain highly controversial even today. The contest can be seen as an allegory for the Great Depression itself, and it has a fairy-tale enigma as well. It provided hope that would allow a family to leap from poverty to wealth at a time when all hope was lost. At the same time, potential repercussions could send a losing contestant to permanent melancholy and strife. While it was sometimes treated lightly in the press, the Great Stork Derby is a strong, serious representation of social attitudes that have proliferated in history and is a case study of morality.

The Ottoman Empire lasted from c. 1299 to 1922 and saw 36 sultans at its helm. Some of them were powerful figures who ruled over life and death in the sultanate, while others were heavily influenced by foreign powers. Their respective ascensions to the throne, conquests, and domestic policies reveal how a Medieval Muslim principality was ultimately replaced by a secular republic in the 20th century. From the dynasty’s founder to Suleiman the Magnificent and a 19th-century reformist, these were the six most powerful Ottoman sultans.

1. Osman I (c. 1299 – c. 1324)

At the beginning of the 14th century, Osman Ghazi was a ruler of just another Turkoman principality in Anatolia, present-day Turkey (Türkiye). Ever since the Great Seljuk Empire disappeared from the world stage around the 13th century, there had been a power vacuum in the lands that once made up the Sultanate of Rum.

Unlike the Turkish principalities in the east, which had to worry about the Mongols, Osman I ruled a beylik located in the northwest of Asia Minor. The area was closest to the Byzantine border, so he often waged wars against the Byzantine Empire. Osman’s expansions brought the Ottomans to the gates of Bursa and Nicaea, which his son and successor, Orhan, would conquer during his reign.

The entire dynasty is named after its founder, Osman. The name originally comes from Arabic (Uthman), but the Europeans pronounced it as “Ottoman,” based on an Italian mispronunciation/adaptation. In English, the adjective was “Osmanli,” which is what most languages use today, including Turkish (Osmanlı İmparatorluğu).

Since there are very few contemporary sources about Osman’s rule, it would be safe to argue that the biggest contribution of the first sultan was naming the empire that would ultimately span three continents.

2. Murad I (c. 1362 – 1389)

The Ottoman dynasty founder’s grandson, Murad I, was the first to significantly expand his realm into the European continent. Having conquered Adrianople (Edirne) in the mid-14th century, he made it the sultanate’s capital.

He then pressed deeper into the Balkans, a move that brought him into conflict with Byzantines, Bulgarians, and, most notably, Lazar Hrebeljanović’s Moravian Serbia. Their skirmishes culminated in the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, where both monarchs lost their lives. The legend has it that a Serbian knight, Miloš Obilić, pretended to surrender to the Ottomans, only to gain access to Murad’s camp, where he assassinated Murad with a concealed knife before being slain by the Sultan’s bodyguards.

Two of Murad’s sons took part in the battle. Bayezid, having been informed of his father’s passing, summoned his brother, Yakub Bey, to the camp, only to have him strangled. This made him Bayezid I, the fourth in the long line of Ottoman sultans.

Apart from his conquests in Rumelia (the Ottoman name for the newly formed province in Southeastern Europe), Murad I strengthened the position of the Grand Vizier, who could now be appointed outside of the royal family. In addition, the grim practice of devşirme, the forceful abduction of Christian children to turn them into elite Janissary corps, was initiated during his reign.

3. Mehmed II (1444 – 1446 & 1451 – 1481)

The man who would later become known as Mehmed the Conqueror was born in Edirne, then the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The nickname seems fitting given that he famously succeeded in conquering Constantinople in 1453, ending the centuries-old rivalry between the Ottomans and the Eastern Roman Empire.

He first ascended the throne when he was just 12 years old, after his father, Murad II, abdicated. These were perilous times for the Ottomans, as the Hungarians, led by figures such as John Hunyadi, broke their truce with the Muslim state and invaded its territory. Mehmed’s father had to step in to defeat the crusaders in the Battle of Varna (1444).

Having returned to power for the second time in 1451, Mehmed II set his sights on the Byzantine capital and managed to conquer it two years later. The fall of Constantinople changed the world, as the Ottomans transformed themselves into a true imperial power.

For the remainder of his reign, Mehmed II waged military campaigns from Bosnia and Hungary in the west to the Crimean Peninsula in the east. When it comes to state affairs, he codified the criminal law, among other legislation, and established the image of the padishah (emperor) as an absolutist ruler.

4. Selim I (1512 – 1520)

The grandson of Mehmed II, Selim I, was nicknamed “The Grim.” However, the epithet “the conquer” may have suited him better, since he enlarged the Ottoman Empire by approximately seventy percent. What is more impressive is that his rule lasted only eight years, during which he conquered the Mamluk Sultanate, putting the entire Levant and Egypt under Ottoman rule. When, in 1517, in Cairo, he received the keys to the holy city of Mecca, it was clear that Selim I had become the symbolic leader of the Muslim world.

Although he was a savvy army commander, history remembers Selim I as a particularly cruel ruler. After defeating the Safavid Persians early in his reign, he is said to have made lists of Shia Muslims in central Anatolia from seven to 70 years old and had his army execute them as they went from city to city. Selim I was a Sunni Muslim, and he was not particularly tolerant of any other brand of Islam.

Selim was not only cruel toward his enemies but also toward his own family. He engaged in fratricide, previously legitimized by Mehmed II, ordering his two brothers (Korkut and Ahmet), together with their children, to be strangled using a silk cord. This method prevented royal blood from being spilled, but it was, nevertheless, a grim dynastic practice.

5. Suleiman I (1520 – 1566)

Not only was he the longest-ruling sultan (46 years), but historians widely regard Suleiman I’s rule as the peak of the Ottoman Empire. Süleyman (the original spelling of his name) was Selim I’s only son, and throughout his life, he was schooled to take over the title of the sultan.

Just a year into his reign, he conquered Belgrade in 1521, which was merely the start of his European campaign. After the Battle of Mohács (1526), the path was clear for Suleiman I to triumphally enter Buda, effectively shattering the Hungarian monarchy. Fast forward three years, and the powerful sultan was already at the gates of Vienna, besieging the Habsburg capital. Although he was unsuccessful, Suleiman I firmly established the frontier of the Ottoman Empire in Central Europe.

Suleiman the Magnificent also led a successful military campaign in the Middle East. He acquired Eastern Anatolia, Baghdad, and much-desired access to the Persian Gulf, all at the expense of the Safavid Empire. Suleiman I was on a path of conquest until the very end of his life. He passed away at the age of 71 during the Siege of Szigetvár in Hungary.

Suleiman I was not considered one of Europe’s most influential 16th-century monarchs solely on the basis of his conquests. He conducted a series of state reforms, such as codifying Ottoman laws, or, more precisely, separating the religious law (Sharia) from the secular law (Kanun). He also worked hard to reduce cronyism and corruption, as well as to improve the taxation system, which would be based on income levels (to use a modern term) and land ownership.

In terms of military reforms, Suleiman I’s reign was the time when the Ottoman navy became a force in the Mediterranean. Previously, the Turks were not regarded as skilled sailors, but under the Admiral Hayreddin Barbarossa (Khayr al-Dīn Barbarūs), the Ottoman navy spread its operations as far as the Indian Ocean, meddling with Portuguese trade routes.

Perhaps the biggest secret behind Suleiman’s statecraft was the people he surrounded himself with. Early on, this was his friend, the Grand Vizier Pargalı Ibrahim Pasha. At the very end of his reign, this role was assumed by Sokollu Mehmet Paşa (Mehmed-paša Sokolović), an ethnic Serb who served as a janissary as part of the devşirme system. Finally, Suleiman I’s wife and great love, Hürrem Sultan, became an influential figure in the Empire. Initially, she was a concubine from Ruthenia (present-day Ukraine) in the sultan’s harem, but won over Suleiman I’s heart. Today, they rest next to each other in Süleymaniye Mosque, commissioned by Suleiman I.

6. Selim III (1789 – 1807)

After Suleiman I’s reign, the Ottoman Empire went through a transformation that would last until the end of the 17th century, when it was at its territorial peak. The following century was marked by state reforms, which are best reflected in Selim III’s brief rule. He inherited the throne from his uncle, Abdul Hamid I, and his father, Mustafa III, was also the sultan prior to that.

Selim III’s biggest legacy is the New Order, a set of regulations designed to reform provincial government and the military. These were the times of Napoleon I, so the Ottoman ruler strove to model his governance and military after the French and other European powers.

However, there were strong forces opposing the reforms within the Empire, most notably, the Janissaries. Together with local notables (the Ayans), they revolted in 1806 in Edirne and across Thrace, after the New Order was applied in Rumelia (the Balkans). The following year, another revolt saw Selim III imprisoned and ultimately murdered on the orders of Mustafa IV, who would become the next sultan, albeit just for one year.

Ottoman Sultans in the Late 19th and 20th Centuries

The murder of Selim III did not stop the reforms. However, they only delayed the ultimate downfall of the Ottoman Empire. The phrase that best described the state from the mid-19th through to the early 20th century was the Sick Man of Europe. Following the Greek War of Independence, the Mediterranean country was the first Balkan nation to gain its independence. Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, among others, followed suit. As a result, by the time the Balkan Wars ended (1912 – 1913), the Ottoman Empire had lost almost all of its lands in Europe.

Apart from a significant loss of territory, the sultans’ power was further weakened by economic dependency on Western loans. The reforms centralized state governance, which caused dissent within the Ottoman Empire. That is why Abdul Hamid II, who reigned for 33 years, until 1909, was the last sultan to have absolute power over the state. The emergence of the Young Turks movement meant that despotism was slowly but surely becoming a thing of the past.

The last Ottoman sultan was Mehmed VI (1918 – 1922), as the Sultanate was abolished after World War I, in which the Ottomans ended up on the losing side (Central Powers). Since 1923, Türkiye has been a republic, and its first president and founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, was, in a sense, a successor to the Ottoman imperial framework.

In 1868, Japan stood at a crossroads. The East Asian nation was, at the time, ruled by a military government that had held power for nearly seven centuries. This changed when Japan was forced to interact with the Western world after being isolated for over two centuries.

The arrival of formidable foreign military powers made the Japanese people realize that their country was technologically behind and at risk of being conquered. Soon, the Tokugawa Shogunate, which ruled the nation, faced opposition from many groups that disagreed on how to handle foreign relations. The differences in opinion soon escalated into a civil war called the Boshin War.

How Four Foreign Warships Ignited Japan’s Deadliest Samurai Civil War

During the 1630s, Japan shut itself off from the outside world under a policy of national seclusion called sakoku. The situation changed dramatically when US Commodore Matthew Perry sailed four steam-powered warships into the Uraga Channel in July 1853. Soon, Japan signed a treaty called the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854 after being threatened by Perry’s military force. The treaty forced Japan to trade with the US and triggered the rise of a movement to overthrow the military government. This movement grew because of anti-shogunate feelings among low-ranking samurai in the western and southwestern regions of Satsuma and Choshu. 

The men rallied behind the popular slogan, Sonno Joi, which means “Revere the Emperor, Expel the Barbarians.” At the time, many samurai believed the Shogunate had failed to protect Japan from foreign invasion. Things changed on January 3, 1868, when the 15-year-old Emperor Meiji was convinced by members of the Satsuma-Choshu coalition to issue an imperial order officially ending the Shogunate in favor of imperial rule. In response, Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the last shogun, gathered 15,000 troops and headed toward the imperial capital of Kyoto to take back political control.

How Industrial Firepower Crushed a Samurai Army of 15,000

The Boshin War officially began on January 27, 1868, at the Battle of Toba-Fushimi. The battle proved that traditional samurai power was over because an Imperial Army of about 3,500 to 5,000 troops defeated the much larger Shogunate force. Even though they had more men, many Shogunate soldiers still used traditional spears and old matchlock muskets. These weapons could not compete with the modern equipment used by the imperial forces. The imperial troops had modern training and used Enfield and Snider-Enfield rifles, Armstrong howitzers, and even rapid-fire Gatling guns.

Morale among Shogunate samurai also dropped after they were declared enemies of the throne. This happened when the Imperial Brocade Banner displaying the golden sun and silver moon was raised, a sacred symbol of the Emperor’s authority. As a result, entire units threw down their weapons and ran away while others joined the Imperial side. During the four days of battle, the Shogunate had hundreds of casualties while the Imperial side suffered significantly fewer. The battle proved that skilled swordsmen could not beat industrial-age guns.

The Secret Deal and Heavy Siege That Ended 700 Years of Shogun Rule

Following the Battle of Toba-Fushimi, the fighting moved north to the Shogunate capital city of Edo, which is now Tokyo. In April 1868, Imperial general Saigō Takamori met with the Shogunate’s Army Minister, Katsu Kaishū, to arrange the peaceful surrender of Edo Castle. The meeting prevented a massive fight that would have burned the city and killed thousands of civilians. The agreement marked the end of Tokugawa rule in Japan.

While the Shogun peacefully gave up his office and went into house arrest, some extremists called the Shogitai refused to go quietly. On July 4, 1868, 2,000 Shogunate loyalists tried to defend Kaneiji Temple, their base, in the Battle of Ueno. The Imperial Army quickly defeated the outnumbered loyalists in a single day by hitting the temple with heavy artillery fire. After securing central Japan, the new government renamed Edo to Tokyo in September of that year.

The Rogue Rebel Republic and the Final Clash That Erased the Samurai Class

The final resistance of the Boshin War came from the Republic of Ezo, which was declared in December 1868. Ezo was an early attempt to establish a government with elected leaders in Japan. Rebel forces were led by Admiral Enomoto Takeaki with help from French military advisors like Jules Brunet. On June 27, 1869, the Battle of Hakodate ended when the fortress called Goryokaku fell and Hijikata Toshizo, the commander of the Shinsengumi, was killed by gunfire. After Enomoto surrendered, the Meiji government took full control of Japan.

Victory in the war led to reforms that eventually removed the samurai as a social class. Because they needed a modern military, the Meiji leaders passed a law in 1873 called the Conscription Ordinance. This law ended the samurai monopoly on fighting by declaring that all male citizens had to serve in the military regardless of their social rank. Owning and using weapons became a duty of all citizens rather than a special right for the warrior class. As modernization arrived, the samurai class became a thing of the past.

Regarded as a traitor and murderous rebel by the Canadian government, as a hero in Quebec, and a defender of the Métis and the Roman Catholic faith in present-day Manitoba, Louis Riel was a controversial figure in Canada for decades. He led his people, the Red River Métis, through some of the hardest and certainly most decisive years of their history, and the Canadian government hanged him for it. Today Riel is finally recognized as the “First Premier of Manitoba” and a Canadian hero.

Métis: A Controversial Term

Métis is a French word meaning “mixed” or “person of mixed descent.” However, the term and its proper use remain a controversial issue. Some scholars have argued that any person of mixed ancestry in Canada, that is, any person of European and Indigenous descent, should be considered métis (lowercase). This approach reflects early Europeans’ use of the term. As early as the 17th century, French and British fur traders used métis to refer to people of Indigenous and European (particularly French) ancestry. The problem with this approach is that across Canada there are thousands of communities of mixed ancestry with such different backgrounds, cultures, and histories that they can hardly be grouped under one single label.

Around Hudson Bay, English and Scottish employees of the Hudson Bay Company often frequented Cree camps and “took” Cree wives, despite the company’s strict policy prohibiting “any mixing of the races,” but they were not the only ones. Similar mixing also occurred between men of the North West Company and Indigenous women belonging to other First Nations. McMillan & Yellowhorn explain that “French fishermen from the Brittany coast left many descendants among the Mi’kmaw and Maliseet. However, these children were never a significant minority and they were raised as Mi’kmaq and Maliseet. No separate social group emerged.” This brings us to the second meaning of being Métis, which is also that embraced by the Métis Nation, whose members continue to proudly claim their uniqueness among First Nations in Canada.

Some scholars maintain that only people of Cree and French-Canadian descent who have a direct connection to the Red River Valley community in Manitoba, in the Winnipeg area, should be called Métis. In this case, one’s proven connection to the Red River settlement, to a specific place in Canada, is the necessary requirement to be identified as part of the Métis Nation (spelled with a capital “M”). In this sense, the term Métis “relates to a community of people who self-identify as being Métis and recognizes that their ancestors made a political decision to identify as Métis based on shared histories and culture,” as explained by the Indigenous Peoples Atlas of Canada. Indigenous communities in Eastern Canada, particularly in Ontario and the Atlantic Provinces, have protested what they consider a narrow and possibly discriminatory definition.

Who Are the Métis?

The Métis Nation, also known as the Red River Métis, originated largely in the Red River Valley, near the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers, after French fur traders and employees of the Hudson’s Bay Company came into contact with Cree bands and decided to marry Cree women and build a life with them, despite opposition from the company they worked for.

Today, Métis homelands encompass the three Canadian Prairie Provinces, namely, Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, and extend into contiguous parts of British Columbia to the west, the Northwest Territories to the north, Ontario to the east, and the northern United States to the south, including North Dakota and Montana. Although there are some Métis in the United States as well, the largest Métis communities still live in present-day Canada.

Métis are formally recognized under the Constitution Act of 1982 as “one of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples,” along with the Inuit and First Nations. The history of the Métis is inseparable from that of the fur trade, so much so that historians sometimes call them “children of the fur trade.” Métis trappers profited from selling furs to three (competing) fur trade companies. These were the American Fur Company, the aforementioned Hudson’s Bay Company, and the North West Company (although the latter two merged in 1821 and continued to operate as a new entity under the name of Hudson’s Bay Company).

After 1821, many Métis trappers became free traders. Some began working as boatmen, paddling huge fur trade canoes and York boats up the rivers from Montreal (Québec) to Fort William (Ontario), and then into what are now the Prairie provinces, northern Alberta and southern Northwest Territories.

As steady revenues from the fur trade declined, demand for bison robes and hides increased. Riding their carefully trained horses, known as “buffalo runners,” the Métis would go on two major hunts a year. The first took place in the fall, the other in late spring (or early summer). The men would hunt, riding at full gallop alongside the bison and killing as many as ten on one single run. The women would follow in their Red River carts to bring the carcasses back to camp and start working on them.

The Pemmican Proclamation

To promote peace between First Nations and Europeans, in 1811, Saulteaux Chief Peguis (1774-1864) signed a treaty with Lord Selkirk (1771-1820) that allowed European settlers to move into southern Manitoba. The treaty led to the creation of the Selkirk Colony (also known as Assiniboia) at the confluence of the Assiniboine River and Red River. This enraged the Métis, who claimed these lands as their own through their Cree ancestors.

The colony encompassed portions of present-day southern Manitoba, small parts of eastern Saskatchewan, northwestern Ontario, and, in the United States, part of Minnesota, North and South Dakota. As the “Selkirk” settlers poured into the area, the appointed governor of Assiniboia, Scottish-born Miles Macdonnell (1767-1828), issued the so-called Pemmican Proclamation, which some historians consider the starting point of Métis nationalism. The Proclamation severely restricted, among other things, the Métis’ freedom to hunt bison and to export any provisions, mainly pemmican, for one year.

In response, the Métis continued to hunt bison herds on horseback and trade pemmican. They also ordered the deportation of the “Selkirk” settlers and arrested Macdonnell. Finally, in 1815, the Hudson Bay Company ordered settlers to leave the colony.

Tensions continued to grow between HBC and the Métis, as well as between the Hudson Bay Company and its rival, the North West Company. They culminated in the Battle of Seven Oaks, or, as the Métis called it, the Victory of the Frog Plain (in French, la Victoire de la Grenouillère, after La Grenouillière, the Métis name of Seven Oaks). It took place on June 19, 1816, near present-day Winnipeg. The Métis, led by Cuthbert Grant (1793-1854), fought alongside employees of the North West Company. To celebrate their decisive victory, they raised the flag of the Métis Nation. It was the first time they publicly asserted their sovereignty, their group identity, and their uniqueness as a new nation, la Nouvelle Nation, distinct from both the Europeans and the First Nations.

Louis Riel and the Red River Resistance

Louis Riel (1844-1885) was born in his grandparents’ one-room home in Saint-Boniface in the Red River Settlement but left at a very young age to study in Montreal, Quebec. He was an excellent student. When he was five years old, his father, Louis Riel Sr. organized a resistance group in support of Guillaume Sayer, a Métis fur trader arrested for opposing the Hudson’s Bay Company trade monopoly in the Red River region.

Louis Riel was 22 when he returned to the Red River Settlement and 25 years old when the Hudson’s Bay Company sold Rupert’s Land, a territory encompassing one-third of what is now Canada, to the Dominion of Canada. The largest land sale in the country’s history was concluded without consulting the First Nations living in the area, including the Métis.

At that point, the Dominion of Canada consisted of the Confederation of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Rupert’s Land, named after Prince Rupert, the Hudson’s Bay Company’s first governor, stretched across northern and western Canada, including present-day Manitoba in its entirety, most of Saskatchewan, southern parts of Alberta and Nunavut, and northern Ontario and Quebec. The government acquired this immense territory for CAD$ 1.5 million.

The Red River Métis soon rebelled. They formed the National Committee of the Métis and elected John Bruce as its president and Louis Riel as secretary. On October 11, 1869, the Committee managed to halt land surveys on Métis lands. On November 2, a group of 500 Métis seized Upper Fort Garry. This was a highly strategic move since the HBC had its main administrative offices at Upper Fort Garry.

One month later, on December 8, the Committee became the Provisional Government of Assiniboia, which included French and English Métis and was led by Louis Riel. The Provisional Government issued a “Declaration of the People of Rupert’s Land and the North-West” and began discussing what the Métis considered the necessary conditions for Assiniboia (which included the Red River settlement) to become part of the Dominion. Eventually, in the spring of 1870, they reached an agreement.

The Manitoba Act became law on May 12: two months later, on July 15, Manitoba became Canada’s fifth province. As part of the agreement, the Canadian Government granted 1.4 million acres of land to the children of the Métis, or, as they were called, the “children of the half-breed heads of families.”

Leading the 1885 Northwest Resistance

After Manitoba became part of the Dominion, hundreds of people from Ontario and Quebec flocked to the Red River region. Many regarded the Métis with hostility. Some openly persecuted them, particularly Protestant Ontarians, radicalized by the death of young Orangeman and anti-Métis agitator, Thomas Scott, who had been executed by a Métis tribunal on March 4, 1870.

In August 1870, the Canadian government sent more than 1,000 troops to “pacify” the region. More than half of the Métis living in Manitoba left for the North-West Territories, which included present-day Alberta and Saskatchewan. Riel was banished from “Her Majesty’s Dominions.”

The 1885 Northwest Resistance is directly connected to the Métis dispersal and dispossession of 1870. 15 years later, despite being finally granted representation by the government of the North-West Territories, the Métis desperately wanted to see their land rights formally recognized. In June 1884, a group led by Charles Nolin and Maxime Lépine managed to have Riel come back from Montana, where he had moved in 1879.

In the summer of 1884, Bishop Grandin met with Prime Minister Macdonald and presented him with a petition outlining the Métis’ grievances. In December, Louis Riel drafted a new petition reiterating the Métis’ demands. They asked the Prime Minister to be granted full title to their lands, that the North-West Territories become a province with its own government, and that Louis Riel’s leadership be fully recognized by the Canadian state. In January 1885, the Canadian government informed the Métis that it would not negotiate with Louis Riel.

In March, the Métis still living in the Batoche area established a provisional government, of which Riel was president. The Northwest Resistance, as it is now called, began with the Battle of Duck Lake on March 25, 1885, when the Métis, joined by some bands of Cree, clashed with the police and the Prince Albert volunteers. During the battle, the Métis forces lost five men. The Canadian side lost twelve men.

The second battle, known as the Battle of Tourond’s Coulee, occurred on April 24. This time the government sent Canadian troops. Most of the fighting took place at Tourond’s Coulee, a ravine on the South Saskatchewan River. Eventually, the forces led by General Middleton withdrew and the Métis rode back to Batoche. Among the Canadian troops, 10 men were killed. The Métis lost four men.

The Battle of Batoche

The Battle of Batoche lasted three days, from May 9 to May 12, 1885. At that time, Batoche was a small village of about 500 residents located between Prince Albert and Saskatoon. It was also the main Métis center in Saskatchewan. The Métis had won the first two battles of the Northwest Resistance. This time, however, government forces led by Major-General Frederick Middleton overwhelmed (and outnumbered) them.

Riel ultimately surrendered. On July 6, 1885, he was charged with treason. His trial began on July 20 in Regina. Although his lawyers defended him on the grounds of insanity, in his final speech Riel proudly reiterated what he called the legitimate demands of his people. He was sentenced to death by hanging and executed on public gallows in Regina, Saskatchewan, on November 16, 1885.

The Battle of Batoche represented the concluding battle of the North-West Resistance and a pivotal moment in the history of the Métis and the First Nations who took part in it. Among them was a group of Dakota and Cree warriors from the One Arrow’s reserve.

In the aftermath of the battle, the Métis were once again dispersed and dispossessed. Some moved to the United States, to north central Montana and North Dakota, while others migrated further north. Some began working as laborers in towns and cities, particularly Regina and Saskatoon, where they witnessed social, economic, and political marginalization. Many began hiding or even denying their identity and culture. First Nations such as the Dakota and the Cree were forced to stay on reserves and their kids were placed in residential schools.

The end of the Resistance and Louis Riel’s execution also had the effect of transforming all Métis, those who participated in the rebellion and those who didn’t, into “rebels” and, obviously, “traitors.” More than a century after his death, the Métis still consider November 16, the day of Riel’s execution, a day of national public commemoration of their leader’s life and determination to protect their rights. In 2016, the government of Manitoba finally recognized Louis Riel’s role in the foundation of Manitoba, and seven years later, in 2023, the Louis Riel Act granted him the title of “First Premier of Manitoba.”

If during his lifetime and the decades following the Battle of Batoche, Riel continued to be considered a traitor and a murderer, in recent years he has become a national hero, an emblem of those values, such as multiculturalism and multilingualism, which are regarded as the pillars of Canadian society today.